Look, I don't know if it was the coaches not adhering to a single approach, or the players not wanting to adapt to changing methods used buy the opposition, the addition of new players to the roster or if it was the opposition figuring out what the Pens were doing, but, the difference in the style of play during the 16 game winning streak was significantly different from the last couple weeks of the regular season and from the playoffs. During the win streak, it seemed to me that they were playing a more defensive oriented, protect our zone style that limited the opposition's scoring chances and created offensive opportunities from the defense. Our mantra was to get the puck out of our end within 10 to 20 seconds, and control and cycle the puck in their end for extended periods of time. True, we weren't scoring a lot of goals, but we weren't giving up a lot either. Toward the end of the reguular season, it seemed to me that we were going back to the offense first style. When we got the puck in their end we were shooting sooner and not working on contriolling the puck. This led to the opposition gaining the puck and moving it to our end and controling it. We lost the consistent territorial advantage we had enjoyed earlier in the year.Except for the last two games against Boston, we continued to play the latter style, and the Islanders, Senators and B's were able to adopt to and counter our style. We struggled against all three. It seemed that we went back to the more defensive mindset in games 3 and 4 against Boston, and played much better. We limited Boston's opportunities and created some of our own in those games, but were not able to convert. Again, I can't say it was the coaching, the players or the hockey gods, but we just got beat by Boston.

My only gripe is the PP. And maybe that it took til game 3 to implement some of the stuff Bylsma did. Their faceoffs were dramatically better as the series went on. Everything else was on the players IMO.

But in terms of overall style of play? I would take this style AND LOSE than play the style that say... The LA Kings play. I hate that brand of hockey with a burning hatred only rivaled by my hatred for late 90's Devil's hockey...

You can play a playoff style system but you still need some luck and no key injuries thrown in to win the Cup.

Think back to 2009. I'm sure we had some luck and bounces go our way when we went down 2-0 against the Caps and Red Wings. Heck, look at Game 6 of the Finals with Scuderi making those saves in the crease.

This year, the Hawks were down 3-1 against the Red Wings and the Bruins were ten minutes away from elimination against the stinkin' Leafs. Things went their way (along with solid play) for the Bruins and Hawks and they are both playing for the Cup now.

Look at Adam McQuaid's game winning goal in Game 4 against the Pens. It looks like the shot from the point goes off one or two Penguin players and in the upper left corner of the net. The way the Pens luck was happening in that series, that same shot taken by a Penguin player either gets blocked or it misses high on net, hits the glass, and bounces to a Bruin player to start their breakout.

The pens had a lot of things go there way in 2008 and 2009 too. It's one of the things that makes this sport so much fun to watch. Can be gutwrenching at times, but also magnificent. Think of the great memories B's fans will have of Rask making some crazy saves on plays the pens should've ended up with goals? Sucks for us, but the sport is bigger than just the penguins.

This whole thread makes me think why Detroit has had a winning team for so long. A defensive minded system that players are brought up in that is designed to have players ready for what to expect when the playoffs come along. Now take the great players they have and have them play in that defensive system. So even if you get 5 scoring chances a game you can win with the better scores.

No scoring titles.No players up for the MVP.OK one Norris trophy guy, Lindstrom was not only a great offensive guy but a great defensive player.

You sacrifice these things for a team that gets far in the playoffs every season. BTW I hate Detroit. But respect what they have had going on there for years.

no name wrote:This whole thread makes me think why Detroit has had a winning team for so long. A defensive minded system that players are brought up in that is designed to have players ready for what to expect when the playoffs come along. Now take the great players they have and have them play in that defensive system. So even if you get 5 scoring chances a game you can win with the better scores.

No scoring titles.No players up for the MVP.OK one Norris trophy guy, Lindstrom was not only a great offensive guy but a great defensive player.

You sacrifice these things for a team that gets far in the playoffs every season. BTW I hate Detroit. But respect what they have had going on there for years.

Detroit hasn't gotten out of the second round since 2009. They have won 3 series since 2009, same as the Pens.

no name wrote:This whole thread makes me think why Detroit has had a winning team for so long. A defensive minded system that players are brought up in that is designed to have players ready for what to expect when the playoffs come along. Now take the great players they have and have them play in that defensive system. So even if you get 5 scoring chances a game you can win with the better scores.

No scoring titles.No players up for the MVP.OK one Norris trophy guy, Lindstrom was not only a great offensive guy but a great defensive player.

You sacrifice these things for a team that gets far in the playoffs every season. BTW I hate Detroit. But respect what they have had going on there for years.

Detroit hasn't gotten out of the second round since 2009. They have won 3 series since 2009, same as the Pens.

You are both equally correct. Long run... Detroit is a model franchise. Short run.... even model franchises may have short run(s) in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

I think the moral of this story is that we need to temper our expectations and celebrate the fact that the Pens are taking a long term view of how to build a consistently competitive franchise that may win some cups but won't more often than not. It's just the nature of hockey.

Jesse wrote:All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

Question for you..Who is the coach? Bylsma. He also could be considered a manager of the team. Is that his product on display? Are those his schemes and adjustments or lack there of?

What was his product doing on the ice that was positive? Not just one game but he had four chances for his product to shine and flourish. Did that happen?

There needs to be blame that goes right around the room because outside of Voukoun there was room for improvement by every player. Voukoun too if you want to say he could have shut the other team out.

Having said that Bylsma is going to take most of the heat and rightfully so. When your product on display performs at such a pathetic level that is your responsibility to change that....whatever that may entail.

I'm sick of hearing people complain about hitting the posts or a hot goalie...etc etc. Sure the posts were hit, but we will prevail because we are going to figure out a way to get some pucks in the net. Whether that is in a schematic approach, line changes, or whatever, the Pens on offense were so anemic in that Bruins series they looked like the "we are trying hard" club led by Rico Fata.

I also fail to see the amazing scoring chances you are pointing to. Outside of James Neal's repeated failure to get the puck on net from the face off win back, what legit good chances did the Pens have in that series? I've watched those games many times now and it looks the same as the first time I watched them. Pens try with all their might to get into the Boston zone only to have the puck systematically removed. Not once or twice but all the time every time. Sure there were a few chances but they were the big exception and certainly not the rule in this series.

In the end I believe Bylsma deserves all the criticism he has gotten. It is his product and anyone who has never coached anything...or at the very least took pride in the coaching they were doing...would never start blaming the players. That is a joke. It is your product. That is the material you have to work with. Instead of making excuses, make it work.

Jesse wrote:All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

Question for you..Who is the coach? Bylsma. He also could be considered a manager of the team. Is that his product on display? Are those his schemes and adjustments or lack there of?

What was his product doing on the ice that was positive? Not just one game but he had four chances for his product to shine and flourish. Did that happen?

There needs to be blame that goes right around the room because outside of Voukoun there was room for improvement by every player. Voukoun too if you want to say he could have shut the other team out.

Having said that Bylsma is going to take most of the heat and rightfully so. When your product on display performs at such a pathetic level that is your responsibility to change that....whatever that may entail.

I'm sick of hearing people complain about hitting the posts or a hot goalie...etc etc. Sure the posts were hit, but we will prevail because we are going to figure out a way to get some pucks in the net. Whether that is in a schematic approach, line changes, or whatever, the Pens on offense were so anemic in that Bruins series they looked like the "we are trying hard" club led by Rico Fata.

I also fail to see the amazing scoring chances you are pointing to. Outside of James Neal's repeated failure to get the puck on net from the face off win back, what legit good chances did the Pens have in that series? I've watched those games many times now and it looks the same as the first time I watched them. Pens try with all their might to get into the Boston zone only to have the puck systematically removed. Not once or twice but all the time every time. Sure there were a few chances but they were the big exception and certainly not the rule in this series.

In the end I believe Bylsma deserves all the criticism he has gotten. It is his product and anyone who has never coached anything...or at the very least took pride in the coaching they were doing...would never start blaming the players. That is a joke. It is your product. That is the material you have to work with. Instead of making excuses, make it work.

With the exception of Game 2, I feel as if the Pens played well, and even out played Boston for a decent portion of the time. That is a product of Dan Bylsma's system.

He can't go out there and make those pucks go in, and don't get me wrong, there was a lot more than posts that lost this for us, but when they adhered to the system they looked good.

So now a question for you:

The Pens played the Bylsma system well in all games but Game 2, in which they looked awful. Did they forget how to play the system for that game? Should Bylsma have had a team meeting during the intermission in which he re-introduced the system in case they had a 48 hr. memory lapse?

topshelf wrote:With the exception of Game 2, I feel as if the Pens played well, and even out played Boston for a decent portion of the time. That is a product of Dan Bylsma's system.

He can't go out there and make those pucks go in, and don't get me wrong, there was a lot more than posts that lost this for us, but when they adhered to the system they looked good.

So now a question for you:

The Pens played the Bylsma system well in all games but Game 2, in which they looked awful. Did they forget how to play the system for that game? Should Bylsma have had a team meeting during the intermission in which he re-introduced the system in case they had a 48 hr. memory lapse?

Of course not.

Then we watched different games. Let's talk about games 1, 3, and 4. Outside of the first 30 mins of game 1 the Pens were out played in every game. Most of those times they were out played badly.

If you think they played well then I believe that is more of trying to be positive and I can understand that. It is human nature to be positive and I am too, however the games were what they were. All Bruins all the time. Minus that little segment in game 1.

Just answer this question to yourself...anyone can answer this to themselves...do you really believe that Dan Bylsma put his players in the best possible position to succeed against the Boston Bruins. It really is as simple as that.

topshelf wrote:With the exception of Game 2, I feel as if the Pens played well, and even out played Boston for a decent portion of the time. That is a product of Dan Bylsma's system.

He can't go out there and make those pucks go in, and don't get me wrong, there was a lot more than posts that lost this for us, but when they adhered to the system they looked good.

So now a question for you:

The Pens played the Bylsma system well in all games but Game 2, in which they looked awful. Did they forget how to play the system for that game? Should Bylsma have had a team meeting during the intermission in which he re-introduced the system in case they had a 48 hr. memory lapse?

Of course not.

Then we watched different games. Let's talk about games 1, 3, and 4. Outside of the first 30 mins of game 1 the Pens were out played in every game. Most of those times they were out played badly.

If you think they played well then I believe that is more of trying to be positive and I can understand that. It is human nature to be positive and I am too, however the games were what they were. All Bruins all the time. Minus that little segment in game 1.

Just answer this question to yourself...anyone can answer this to themselves...do you really believe that Dan Bylsma put his players in the best possible position to succeed against the Boston Bruins. It really is as simple as that.

We out shot them in games 3 and 4, and game 1 was a one shot difference. We out hit them, too. We played well, but they proved to either be the better team, the hotter team, or a combination of both.

I don't think there is anything Bylsma could have done to change the way the series went, with the exception of dropping a bomb on the entire system and starting from scratch (which probably would have led to us getting trounced on the scoreboard).

What could he have done to "put his players in the best possible position" to win? If you're saying he didn't, then you must know what he should have done.

Jesse wrote:All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I also fail to see the amazing scoring chances you are pointing to. Outside of James Neal's repeated failure to get the puck on net from the face off win back, what legit good chances did the Pens have in that series? I've watched those games many times now and it looks the same as the first time I watched them. Pens try with all their might to get into the Boston zone only to have the puck systematically removed. Not once or twice but all the time every time. Sure there were a few chances but they were the big exception and certainly not the rule in this series.

They could have had three goals in the first five minutes of game three alone. You could probably find 5 out of the 21 shots Evgeni Malkin had in Game 3. You can find 5 from Sidney Crosby BY HIMSELF in Game 4. Malkin got robbed in Game by Chara's arm.

Bennett cutting to the net in Game 3. Kunitz whiffing on clear cut scoring chances in game 1. Iginla cutting to the net in game 3. A helmetless Crosby in Game 3. James Neal in the circle. A two on one in game four where TK refuses to go to the net and forces Neal into a bad pass. The end of the period 2 in Game 1. I could keep going...

Jesse wrote:All I see are people blaming Bylsma for every single issue the team had. I don't see anyone blaming the players, namely Crosby and Malkin, for their lack of ability to finish the a single scoring chance in that series. I guess shooting the puck off the post, getting stoned by Rask, and missing the net on high quality scoring chances have somehow transformed into the coaches fault.

I also fail to see the amazing scoring chances you are pointing to. Outside of James Neal's repeated failure to get the puck on net from the face off win back, what legit good chances did the Pens have in that series? I've watched those games many times now and it looks the same as the first time I watched them. Pens try with all their might to get into the Boston zone only to have the puck systematically removed. Not once or twice but all the time every time. Sure there were a few chances but they were the big exception and certainly not the rule in this series.

They could have had three goals in the first five minutes of game three alone. You could probably find 5 out of the 21 shots Evgeni Malkin had in Game 3. You can find 5 from Sidney Crosby BY HIMSELF in Game 4. Malkin got robbed in Game by Chara's arm.

Bennett cutting to the net in Game 3. Kunitz whiffing on clear cut scoring chances in game 1. Iginla cutting to the net in game 3. A helmetless Crosby in Game 3. James Neal in the circle. A two on one in game four where TK refuses to go to the net and forces Neal into a bad pass. The end of the period 2 in Game 1. I could keep going...

Please do keep going, it has gotten stale how people are effectively only blaming Bylsma when it was definitely not entirely his fault.

Jesse, you can't have it both ways. You say it wasn't coaching, then say Bylsma should have done things differently (PP). It's definitely a bit of everything, from bad coaching, to players not playing their best, to some bad luck even.

Our attack for the most part wasn't working because I saw our guys skating around without support behind them, so they seemed constantly outnumbered. I also did not see us causing enough havoc in front of Rask's net 5on5 or PP. He had it too easy. Unless Boston's D are so physically strong, our guys couldn't handle that? Nah. It's lack of proper directions from Bylsma.

#66:There are a bunch of things and at the same time the Hawks are doing some things just like the Pens... they just do it better.

The Hawks stretch pass to players with speed and then support that speed so that player has options. The Pens would stretch pass to some slower players and give him no support. So that player that gets the stretch pass gets eaten alive by any player gapping well.

The Hawks turned that Bruins D around by making smart dumps, getting the puck and then using the endboards to make plays. The Pens were just sucked into the Bruins collapse, skated right into them or skated up to them and put a lame shot on Rask. No poise, no set up...

Bumping Rask every now and then. The Hawks go to the net hard and seem to be getting under his skin. The Pens rushed their shots so net front never became an issue.

The Hawks match up... the Pens don't.

The Hawks can cover Toews and Kane when they don't score. The Pens don't cover Malkin and Sid.

The Hawks best player is finding a way to play well even though he might not have had a great game. Sid played some of the worst hockey I've ever seen him play.

The Hawks are a lot cleaner coming out of their own zone. The Pens made mistake and giveaways that peewee's would laugh at.

Even when the Hawks did make mistakes their structure can take over and keep things safe. Make a mistake... its addressed and adjusted to with structural issues so it doesn't happen again. With the Pens it seems like a mistake is dealt with by telling the player he has to do better next time. No adjustments, no change in plans.

The Hawks know when to reverse the puck. The Pens will force the puck up the wall even if Godzilla is taking a lane away.

Yes you can have it both ways. That's how it works in sports. Coaches can only do so much and players must execute. If the PP was failing that's on the coach, but if the players executed at ES that is on the players. This is being intentionally simple, but the point remains that series was a failing across the board at different points. The players weren't the best they could be, and some coaching decisions didn't work. But Bylsma can't go out and score goals. That absolutely falls on the players. And in games 3 and 4 the defense and the system did its job, up to the players to score.

It is up to the coach to make players skate around in a formation of 5, as the Bruins did, and provide support for one another. That was completely lacking for Pens and that was 100% on Bylsma. Shooting at posts, lack of toughness, etc.. that's on the players. But to me, lack of better structure was the key in the series.

Rylan wrote:What lack of structure? Game 2 was the only game where there was a system-wide collapse

The entire style we played reeked of lack of structure. I just told you a big one... lack of player support. How our guys would constantly go 1 on 2, 2 on 4, and either lose battles/puck when outnumbered or randomly throw the puck at the net in desperation because there was no one to support that player. That's structure, or lack of it, and that's on Bylsma.

Rylan wrote:What lack of structure? Game 2 was the only game where there was a system-wide collapse

The entire style we played reeked of lack of structure. I just told you a big one... lack of player support. How our guys would constantly go 1 on 2, 2 on 4, and either lose battles/puck when outnumbered or randomly throw the puck at the net in desperation because there was no one to support that player. That's structure, or lack of it, and that's on Bylsma.